Are aset images used as "proofy" numbers?

[Rockdiamond]

I've been using my aset more and more, on many different stones.
I'm looking at it in a different light and opening my mind to the possibilities.
BTW- I don't find it easy at all to use if I'm holding the diamond in tweezers- it's much easier to get a photo on the light and look at that.
In that regard, I'll admit it's great for internet representation. On that point, when looking at stones with a more organized facet pattern ( ie not crushed ice) and aset images are well explained by a vendor who's in physical possession of the diamond to correlate the aset with reality, I can see the utility.
This is a far cry from an individual asking for an aset image from Whateverjeweler.com, posting it on PS to have it evaluated.

As far as how to interpret aset from crushed ice, the jury is out.

Let us not forget your biggest mistake of all in that photograph.
The ASET evaluates through the crown lighting.

Pretty hard to reproduce a through the crown evaluation when you hold up a stone in tweezers and light the pavilion.
Take a photograph with the stone in the tray (pavilion blocked) like you did before, you'll find the bowtie areas much easier to find.

You also asked how do you evaluate marquises, well first you realize all the leakage(white) and weak light return(green) areas in the example you posted.

Then you find a a marquise that has an ASET that looks more like this. (Hint: its not a brand name, not fully optimized, just a set of well aligned proportions and happens to be the default cut parameters for marquise in Diamcalc.)

ccl brings up a good point. He's doing what I am referring to- that being, evaluating aset with no "reality check"
Green can be very good- that much I can see easily looking at a variety of "sparkly" crushed ice stones.

ccl mentioned crown light usage.
Given that the main lighting source is beneath the diamond, isn't the light below the diamond far brighter than the reflection of that light from the aset unit?
Seems to me you're shooting a lot of light up through the pavilion

 

[John P]

John- as we see here in this very thread, it's not the metric itself, but the interpretation of it by consumers that is the problem- especially so in the case of self proclaimed consumer experts here on PS who claim to be able to advise other unsuspecting consumers that they can indeed make substantive judgments on the cut of a diamond based on aset.

Isn't this like the saying "guns don't kill people - people kill people" ?

Either way I think "Proofiness" is not an appropriate label. By nature transparent systems are not deceptive. Opaque systems definitely exist (!) but a component of the pedantically transparent AGSL system is, to me, the least deserving of a thread insinuating deception. I'm pretty sure we could begin naming far more appropriate targets together, aren't you?

As the thread has now taken a turn down the marquise analysis path, perhaps you would consider having PS admin modify the title - to be less sensational and for future marquise search-ability since few threads discuss that shape.

 

[stone-cold11]

ccl mentioned crown light usage.
Given that the main lighting source is beneath the diamond, isn't the light below the diamond far brighter than the reflection of that light from the aset unit?
Seems to me you're shooting a lot of light up through the pavilion

Which is what the white in the ASET represents, backlighting.

How does the color areas, red, green and blue, get onto the diamond image as the unit is opaque?

 

[Rockdiamond]

John, it would probably be a great idea to have a thread- or better yet, a guide in the info section- to aset and it's relation to all the different shapes.
If it is well written the disclaimer would have to include the fact that aset, in and of itself, may not provide conclusive results.

I apologize if the title was controversial John- but the relevance is crystal clear to me, in a broader sense than analyzing marquise aset.
My question was, and is- are aset images being "misestimated"- that is to say, interpreted incorrectly.
If this thread brings up general questions I also think it's a great place to discuss.
For example, the crown lighting aspect? Stone- those colors are reflections within the diamond.

ccl mentioned that aset simulates crown lighting, but if the main light is below, doesn't that change things? Particularly with white in the aset image- or what's commonly identified as leakage here.


eta- John, if you feel strongly, I have no objection whatsoever if the title was changed.
How about " Are aset images being interpreted correctly on PS?"

 

[Doc_1]

HI all,
I heard a very interesting interview on NPR the other day, and PS came to mind.
Here's a transcription. The author of this book coined a few phrases, which I feel relate directly to aset interpretation here on PS. "Proofiness" and "Disestimation "
The section below got me to thinking about the interpretation of aset images.

Every poll comes with a little number attached to it called the margin of error, and the margin of error is taken as how reliable this poll is, that it's 23 percent belief that Barack Obama is not born in the United States, plus or minus three percent. The problem is that for these polls, the margin of error only describes one very specific type of error that plagues polls. It comes from taking a small sample of people and projecting it to the entire world.

But in fact, when polls go wrong, it's due to a completely different type of error called the systematic error. These are errors that come when the poll isn't set up quite right, that the questions are a bit misleading or that you choose the wrong sample of people to interview or people are lying.

And these numbers are not reflected in the margin of error. So when journalists report polls, most of which are really not worth the paper they're written on, I think they're kind of innocently performing an act of proofiness, giving the public quasi-fictions in the name of fact.

Basically, aset is looking at one aspect of a diamond, and from a very limited perspective. That being a "given" lighting scenario

My position is that interpretation of aset images is systematically incorrect.
The tool does what it does. it shows where the diamond is getting light from.
I find a lot of limitations with that aspect- but far more is the mistaken belief that the information it provides has broad based relevance for consumers.
If, as I strongly believe, this information is interpreted completely incorrectly, with false conclusions drawn, it's far worse than no information at all.

It seems to me the comparison between the sample of a poll in a statistic and the ASET on a diamond is not relevant.
In the first, the poll size representing the large population with a certain margin of error, in the second the ASET is representing the diamond in 100% since it is applied to that particular diamond.
so there is no systematic errors in the later, it represents the population in a 100% as if you applied the poll question to every individual in the country.
Now questioning the ASET as a method of gauging the diamond performance is a different story.

 

[kenny]

As the thread has now taken a turn down the marquise analysis path, perhaps you would consider having PS admin modify the title - to be less sensational and for future marquise search-ability since few threads discuss that shape.

But sensational gets more eyeballs for the sales link in his sig line.

 

[John P]

eta- John, if you feel strongly, I have no objection whatsoever if the title was changed.
How about " Are aset images being interpreted correctly on PS?"

You proposed one above that struck me as appropriate David: "Are ASET images being misestimated?" And, if you think it would be helpful, you could include a tag for future marquise searches: "Are ASET images being misestimated / marquise ASET examples."

Thank you.

 

[stone-cold11]

ccl mentioned that aset simulates crown lighting, but if the main light is below, doesn't that change things? Particularly with white in the aset image- or what's commonly identified as leakage here.

It does not change anything because it is the color areas that represents crown lighting, not the white area which represents pavilion, back lighting.

Which is what the white in the ASET represents, backlighting.

How does the color areas, red, green and blue, get onto the diamond image as the unit is opaque?

I will ask again, how does the red, green and blue come about if the ASET is opaque? If you completely cover the opening, placing it on a granite tabletop, what do you see in the ASET?

 

[Rockdiamond]

Doc- I see what you're saying if we consider the aset the culprit- but that's not the case. Aset is a very simple tool- it's (ab)use is at issue

I particularly liked the part about the guy in the museum, when asked how old the T-Rex was.
65,000,037
Well it was 65 million when I started 37 years ago.
And green is bad in an aset.

A lot of people I respect tremendously make a point for aset.
So I'm keeping a more open mind.
In fact, it may have been all the disestimating I've witnessed that really turned me off to it.
Also, it's simply never been necessary for me to use when buying- in fact one of my biggest objections to it is that sellers might have to forgo beautiful stones simply because the aset looks different from what's thought to be a "good" aset.
As I said, I've been looking at a lot of stones with it.
It seems clear to me that the information it provides is not conclusive in determining cut quality- and especially not beauty.
But it IS some sort of consistent information. A little information, which is applied badly, and becomes quite misleading in some cases.

 

[Rockdiamond]

ccl mentioned that aset simulates crown lighting, but if the main light is below, doesn't that change things? Particularly with white in the aset image- or what's commonly identified as leakage here.

It does not change anything because it is the color areas that represents crown lighting, not the white area which represents pavilion, back lighting.

Which is what the white in the ASET represents, backlighting.

How does the color areas, red, green and blue, get onto the diamond image as the unit is opaque?

I will ask again, how does the red, green and blue come about if the ASET is opaque? If you completely cover the opening, placing it on a granite tabletop, what do you see in the ASET?

Stone, maybe I was not clear- I'm placing the diamond in a hole in a light- table up- meaning we're lighting the diamond from behind.
From what I can see, the colors are a reflection of the light in which the diamond is placed- reflecting down from the aset cup, throught the table, and crown, and back off the pavilion, and around the diamond.
But the light from underneath- are we assuming that has no effect on what we're seeing other than the white areas?
And how do we know that in all cases white is, in fact a negative thing called leakage?
I mean to say- if light followed such a direct path, then white in the aset photo would be a place you could see your skin if the diamond was placed on your finger. Which is not the case.

 

[stone-cold11]

Stone, maybe I was not clear- I'm placing the diamond in a hole in a light- table up- meaning we're lighting the diamond from behind.
From what I can see, the colors are a reflection of the light in which the diamond is placed- reflecting down from the aset cup, throught the table, and crown, and back off the pavilion, and around the diamond.
But the light from underneath- are we assuming that has no effect on what we're seeing other than the white areas?
And how do we know that in all cases white is, in fact a negative thing called leakage?
I mean to say- if light followed such a direct path, then white in the aset photo would be a place you could see your skin if the diamond was placed on your finger. Which is not the case.

The bold part is the relevant part. It is the light reflected off the inside of the ASET. Since the ASET is mostly above the girdle of the stone, most of the colored areas are light coming from above the girdle, crown lighting. Some green maybe are from the pavilion area, due to the girdle of the stone being inside the ASET.

White is in most case negative because you cannot depend on light coming in from the pavilion in most case all the time, due to the setting, you hand. You sure you cannot see the skin of your hand when you place the stone in between your hand? Remember the 60/60 thread? It has been pointed out to you by Karl.

http://www.pricescope.com/forum/roc...ed-to-ags0-is-aset-and-photos-t115342-30.html

Yellow arrow is leakage, black in ASET and your finger color in regular pic.

 

[Doc_1]

Doc- I see what you're saying if we consider the aset the culprit- but that's not the case. Aset is a very simple tool- it's (ab)use is at issue

I particularly liked the part about the guy in the museum, when asked how old the T-Rex was.
65,000,037
Well it was 65 million when I started 37 years ago.
And green is bad in an aset.

A lot of people I respect tremendously make a point for aset.
So I'm keeping a more open mind.
In fact, it may have been all the disestimating I've witnessed that really turned me off to it.
Also, it's simply never been necessary for me to use when buying- in fact one of my biggest objections to it is that sellers might have to forgo beautiful stones simply because the aset looks different from what's thought to be a "good" aset.
As I said, I've been looking at a lot of stones with it.
It seems clear to me that the information it provides is not conclusive in determining cut quality- and especially not beauty.
But it IS some sort of consistent information. A little information, which is applied badly, and becomes quite misleading in some cases.

I did not see the ASET as a culprit.
it is a test done on each stone and it does not attempt to sample a group of diamonds to represent the whole diamond population, hence i did not see the relevance to the poll sampling example.

 

[Dancing Fire]

Your point for the last year is your "cut for weight" or "cut for cheap shallow rough" diamonds can have the same light performance signature as more expensive diamonds per carat(that require a lower yield or more expensive rough).

yeah, i get the same impression from reading RD's posts...

 

[Karl_K]

especially so in the case of self proclaimed consumer experts here on PS who claim to be able to advise other unsuspecting consumers that they can indeed make substantive judgments on the cut of a diamond based on aset.

It just chaps your hide don't it that consumers opinions are given more weight than yours.

 

[kenny]

Your point for the last year is your "cut for weight" or "cut for cheap shallow rough" diamonds can have the same light performance signature as more expensive diamonds per carat(that require a lower yield or more expensive rough).

yeah, i get the same impression from reading RD's posts...

Gee, I wonder what kind of diamonds he sells and why he's here on PS attacking good cut.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Stone, maybe I was not clear- I'm placing the diamond in a hole in a light- table up- meaning we're lighting the diamond from behind.
From what I can see, the colors are a reflection of the light in which the diamond is placed- reflecting down from the aset cup, throught the table, and crown, and back off the pavilion, and around the diamond.
But the light from underneath- are we assuming that has no effect on what we're seeing other than the white areas?
And how do we know that in all cases white is, in fact a negative thing called leakage?
I mean to say- if light followed such a direct path, then white in the aset photo would be a place you could see your skin if the diamond was placed on your finger. Which is not the case.

The bold part is the relevant part. It is the light reflected off the inside of the ASET. Since the ASET is mostly above the girdle of the stone, most of the colored areas are light coming from above the girdle, crown lighting. Some green maybe are from the pavilion area, due to the girdle of the stone being inside the ASET.

White is in most case negative because you cannot depend on light coming in from the pavilion in most case all the time, due to the setting, you hand. You sure you cannot see the skin of your hand when you place the stone in between your hand? Remember the 60/60 thread? It has been pointed out to you by Karl.

http://www.pricescope.com/forum/roc...ed-to-ags0-is-aset-and-photos-t115342-30.html

Yellow arrow is leakage, black in ASET and your finger color in regular pic.

Stone- although parts of the aset seem to correspond with the photos, others clearly do not. One example is the orange arrow- inthe live photo it is a single light part- looking like a lightening bolt.
IN the aset there's a mirror image right next to it- and aset shows it going all around the diamond in these "pairs".
In that photo it is not clear if you are seeing skin through the diamond, and you could not do so in real life.

Karl- your disrespect for trademembers is reprehensible. A shame that you have paired off with Kenny.
AS a real trade member, here's my advice: If you want to get anywhere in the diamonds buisiness past having a "trade" designation on PS< you'll need to repsect others in the trade.

 

[stone-cold11]

Nope, it is your interpretation problem with the ASET. The ASET is a dome light, don't tell me your lighting for that photo is an entire dome covering exactly the same angular position that is represented by the red in the ASET.

It is clear to me that is the skin and I have seen it in real life.

 

[Rockdiamond]

No I did not use a dome light- but that's not a realistic method- it's not my interpretaion problem. The problem is people making quantitative statements about cut based on aset alone. There needs to be a visual check to corroborate the aset

I took the photo and examined the diamond
You could not see skin through it
Maybe you've seen stones that showed skin Stone, but you did not see this one

 

[stone-cold11]

No I did not use a dome light- but that's not a realistic method- it's not my interpretaion problem. The problem is people making quantitative statements about cut based on aset alone. There needs to be a visual check to corroborate the aset

I took the photo and examined the diamond
You could not see skin through it
Maybe you've seen stones that showed skin Stone, but you did not see this one

Nope, it is your interpretation.

This is what you stated. Bolded part.

Stone- although parts of the aset seem to correspond with the photos, others clearly do not. One example is the orange arrow- inthe live photo it is a single light part- looking like a lightening bolt.
IN the aset there's a mirror image right next to it- and aset shows it going all around the diamond in these "pairs".
In that photo it is not clear if you are seeing skin through the diamond, and you could not do so in real life.

What causes that 'lightning bolt'? Your light source being reflected, probably a tube lamp, resulted in the 'lightning bolt' and you equate that with with red going all around the stone in the ASET. If your lighting is a hemispherical lighting at the same orientation as the ASET setup, it will show white light going all round the stone where the red of the ASET is. I never said you have to get a hemispherical lighting source to take pic, just that to get the exact same effect, you have to get the exact same lighting conditions. You are expecting a line light source to simulate the effect of a dome light source. That is not an interpretation, understanding problem?

Ya, I did not see the leakage personally in this particular stone, does not mean it is not there, just you do not know what to look for.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Hi Stone,
Thank you for adding your knowledge to this thread.
In thinking about aset, and PS, it's probably better to start a new thread that will allow me to ask about certain aspects of aset in a manner that is more clinical, less sensational.

I still have a lot of questions, and will be grateful for your input.

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

What causes that 'lightning bolt'? Your light source being reflected, probably a tube lamp, resulted in the 'lightning bolt' and you equate that with with red going all around the stone in the ASET. If your lighting is a hemispherical lighting at the same orientation as the ASET setup, it will show white light going all round the stone where the red of the ASET is. I never said you have to get a hemispherical lighting source to take pic, just that to get the exact same effect, you have to get the exact same lighting conditions. You are expecting a line light source to simulate the effect of a dome light source. That is not an interpretation, understanding problem?

Ya, I did not see the leakage personally in this particular stone, does not mean it is not there, just you do not know what to look for.

The confusion here is if one says an ASET image simulates one particular lighting condition, it does not, and shouldn't ever be interpreted that way.

The ASET represents Potential light return and which areas in the diamond have the potential to return light of a particular angular range.

One will not find perfectly symmetrical and equal intensity lighting over an entire hemisphere that allows all parts of a diamond represented in an ASET as Green, Blue or Red to be lit up at the same time. Noone would want that either, then the diamond would look like a headlight and we would be blinded by such light.

It is a common mistake that trade and consumers make to try to find lighting or claim the ASET is misleading when not all Red or Green parts in the ASET image can be shown to be litup at the same time.

In a proper comparison between ASET and real life view (or photograph and video) the pavilion lighting should be minnimized, and the most intense areas of the diamond's light return(shown to be bright) should correspond to red and (possibly green) areas in the ASET. The white areas(leakage) should not be litup.

If the white areas are litup upon viewing it means the diamond is receiving significant pavilion lighting or side lighting or the diamond is tilted with respect to the viewer in a way different from then the way the ASET image was taken.

To compare a photograph with an ASET the faceup photograph must be compared to the faceup ASET image. The ASET by design represents crown only lighting(the pavilion lighting has no color (unless its a colored diamond). One must block the pavilion and try to light the diamond with as wide an angular range of diffuse lighting as possible to best compare brightness as seen in a a photograph with the ASET image.